Following the EU investigation into Internet Explorer's inclusion in Windows, Microsoft made it possible to "turn off" Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7, by removing the executable and every mention of the browser from the system. According to Opera and Google, this is nice, but not enough.

I didn’t say that one failed and another didn’t They both fail the end user because they both don’t respect the end user, nor understand them clearly. In industrial design, software stands out as one of the greatest sore thumbs ever. Society simple could not function if everything analogue for the last 50 years was as backwards as software design.

Otherwise their would not be so many and they would not survive very long either ...

Your so called "End user" is sick in the head anyway :

Since Microsoft office is not availaible on GNU/Linux it's the fault of GNU/Linux ... Hello it's a Microsoft proprietary product ...

Since Adobe Photoshop is not availaible on GNU/Linux it's the fault of GNU/Linux ... Hello it's an Adobe proprietary product ...

My new nvidia card nobody in GNU/Linux as seen or heard about is not supported by the distribution , it's the fault of GNU/Linux ...

My new camera from RED/Canon/Nokia that nobody in GNU/Linux as seen or heard about is not supported by the distribution , it's the fault of GNU/Linux ...

My new HP printer that don't come with GNU/Linux support that nobody in GNU/Linux as seen or heard about is not supported by the distribution , it's the fault of GNU/Linux ...

Etc ...

It's definitely not the fault of GNU/Linux. It is definitely the fault of MS/Adobe/nVidia etc. that it's not supported.

However I assure you that a huge percentage of people buying PC's for casual use really don't care WHO'S fault it is. They just want to use their stuff, be it file types, cameras, scanners, audio interfaces, printers, etc.

It's a problem that will continue, and will hinder Linux's adoption rate as a desktop OS for both the average user as well as businesses.

The same problem exists, though to a much lesser extent, on Mac. I'd love to switch everyone to a Mac, but I can't. There are too many cases of X piece of software only runs on Windows. You can get 90% there, but that last piece of software kills it. And unfortunately dualbooting or VM's are more trouble than they're worth for the average user.

Try using it - if it isn't the browser constantly hanging and freezing because of cpu hogging java script, its their lack of fixing up problems or addressing requests from customers.

People don't use Opera for a reason - and it has nothing to do with how much (or little) marketing they do.

Case in point, I'm using Opera in Linux - there is spell checking but not as one types (to show the squiggle line under a misspelt word); I sent a request; it has been how many releases and this very basic feature not added? thanks to that one feature missing I went back to using Firefox. One feature and you've lost me and some other users.

Stop the whining, stop the complaining and fix the damn browser - then people like me might choose it over and above Firefox.

You could say the same for any other browser, including Firefox. Yes, including Firefox. Take a look at all feature or fix requests that haven't been addressed since the early 2000's on Firefox's Bugzilla...

Today I updated Firefox on my computer. The two addons that I use (Mouse Gestures and Clippings) were disabled because they're not compatible with the new version. These two features work out of the box on Opera. So how good are extensions in this case?...Yet another area to complain about Firefox.

Today I updated Firefox on my computer. The two addons that I use (Mouse Gestures and Clippings) were disabled because they're not compatible with the new version. These two features work out of the box on Opera. So how good are extensions in this case?...Yet another area to complain about Firefox.

So you'd sooner have a browser constantly crashing because of extension incompatibilities than Firefox taking the conservative approach and disabling those extensions which aren't compatible (given that the versioning policy is set by the developer who created the extension).

But hey, yelling, screaming and spitting at me is alot easier than coming up with a logical reason as to why the extensions were disabled. I guess venting on a forum rather than constructive discussion based on facts rather than hyperbole isn't your forte I guess.

Regarding Opera, again, you failed to address the issues raised. I will run it when it addresses the short comings which inhibit me from moving. I am NOT talking in general but MY case. Stop trying to extrapolate from what I say applies to EVERYONE, it only applies to ME because I can only talk about MY OWN circumstances and not anyone elses. When I talk in GENERAL I don't give specifics I simply use examples of MY EXPERIENCES are probable reasons.

So you'd sooner have a browser constantly crashing because of extension incompatibilities than Firefox taking the conservative approach

I have used Opera since the 7.x series and I have had very seldom problems of Opera crashing. It actually happened with the 8.x series but the problem was a flawky memory that I changed. Since then, Opera has always been stable with no exception on my computer.

But hey, yelling, screaming and spitting at me

Calm down. I'm not "spitting" at you.

...is alot easier than coming up with a logical reason as to why the extensions were disabled.

I know why all these extensions are disabled. It's because they haven't been tested yet in newer versions of Firefox.

I guess venting on a forum rather than constructive discussion based on facts rather than hyperbole isn't your forte I guess.

It is. Proof is the facts that I exposed to you:
1) The list of feature requests not addressed in Firefox's Bugzilla
2) The broken extensions

While I don't agree with requiring MS to include other browsers (I think just being able to remove it is plenty sufficient), I think you are WAY off base here. Whether or not you like it doesn't mean you need to be inflamitory with such foul language. Personally I have been a quite happy Opera user for many years now (tabbed browsing before any other major browser, integrated BT client, etc.).

I think you are WAY off base here. Whether or not you like it doesn't mean you need to be inflamitory with such foul language. "

I agree, saying "their desktop browser is shit" is plain rude and a slap in the face of Opera devs. This is a selfish and rude behavior. It's not Opera's fault if the browser doesn't work well on his computer. It's not like every Opera user complained about the bugs he mentioned. And in any case it takes time to fix bugs (for any application).

He seems to forget all features Opera has invented, and that "non-shitty" browsers have adopted. He also seems to forget that Opera has always been a pioneer adopting and advocating web standards. Like Firefox, Safari and Chrome, Opera is a nice little browser that deserves more attention.

I agree. No matter what I think of ms, and I don't particularly care for them, this is just stupid. I seriously don't get it, ms is not obligated to provide another browser, or even an option to provide another browser with Windows. The ability to remove it, either at will or at installation time or both, is more than enough. Otherwise, you'll have to go after Apple as well for daring to provide Safari with OS X. Who do they think they are, anyway, providing a default browser with OS X? Why, the nerve of them!</sarcasm> Are they going to demand this of Linux oses as well? Most provide Firefox as a default, you know, and you don't always get the option to not install it. Now, removing it is easy, just like removing Safari from OS X is easy, and removing IE8 from Windows 7 will be.
Oh, and to Google, I could always choose what browser I wanted, whenever I so wished. I don't know what the option is called in Vista, but in 2k and XP it was and still is known as "Set Program Access and Defaults."
This is ridiculous. Google and Opera need to realize that Microsoft does not have any obligation to them to provide any other browser but Internet Explorer with Windows. Now, as for OEMs, that's a whole other matter and they can provide whatever they wish. MS is making it possible to remove IE if you don't want it, which will obviously allow OEMs to ship other browsers without IE getting in the way. If Google and Opera want their browsers included with default installations, they need to concentrate on getting them included by the OEMs. Microsoft has no obligation to them.

If Opera had their way, they would legistlate away all their competition, which I find disgusting. And while I understand why microsoft is all flustered about google owning the internet, I don't see why google gets all silly about stuff like this. They did the same thing with sueing MS about the search button on the start menu a year or two back. Silly, stupid, and pointless, other then to tweak microsofts nose.

I could always choose what browser I wanted, whenever I so wished. I don't know what the option is called in Vista, but in 2k and XP it was and still is known as "Set Program Access and Defaults."

"Default Programs" lives between "Help and Support" and "Control Panel" on the start menu in vista.

Yet another person who misses the point. Forget Apple and Linux for now(they don't have a monopoly on the industry)

In any type of thing like this, take police for example, they look for KNOWN criminals. If you read that right you'd know that Microsoft are KNOWN to misbehave and abuse their monopoly, so they get looked at first and pressed hard about it.

I find it incredible that you can throw Linux into the same place as Microsoft and IE. Anyone who posts here knows that Firefox is in no way, tried into the OS. Firefox is the preferred browser of users, it installs and uninstalls like any other third party software(it is third party).

Oh, no. No way. You want fair treatment, you need to treat all fairly. If whatever government starts coming down on Microsoft for including a browser, especially after they've finally done what they should have done and made it removeable, is going to be accused of unfair heavy-handedness directed at one party and not another. And it would be right that they would be accused as such, and Microsoft would have every right to be displeased. Forget your personal vendettas against Microsoft for a moment, if you can, and look at the broader implications this would have. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and they should be dealt with as such, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand anymore. They are making IE removeable. The OEMs can bundle whatever they wish. Now that they have done this, you have to play fairly in this situation.
Think about it, is this a power you really want governments to have? The power to decide, in all situations, what software is to be allowed and included in a software package? Because that is the precedent this will be setting, and it's a dangerous one.
Be careful what you wish for, you might not like it once you get it.

I find it incredible that you can throw Linux into the same place as Microsoft and IE. Anyone who posts here knows that Firefox is in no way, tried into the OS. Firefox is the preferred browser of users, it installs and uninstalls like any other third party software(it is third party).

You don't seem to get it either. You can remove IE8 from Windows 7 so your arguement is moot.

You don't seem to get it either. You can remove IE8 from Windows 7 so your arguement is moot.

That's not the way it works when you break the law; It's like a burglar promising not to break into any more houses... Even if he keeps his promise, he hasn't given back what he stole, and he should still be punished for what he's done in the past.

The same principle applies to Microsoft, making the browser removable after years of tying doesn't undo the damage done by their use of a monopoly in one market to enter another, and doesn't mean that they won't do the same thing again the next time a new market opens up.

When the violations you're talking about occurred, Chrome didn't even exist. Now you claim Chrome was damaged? As for Opera, they need to ask themselves why Firefox as 25% share while they have <1%. Anyone with a working brain knows that Opera's problems aren't Microsoft's fault.

As for "the law", Microsoft's cases regarding this issue have been tried and remedies already agreed upon both parties in a settlement. Coming in YEARS later to pile on isn't due process, regardless of how much you despise Microsoft.

#2 Microsoft should not be allowed to have a browser at all , yet they got the privilege to continue offering it and abused that privilege too.

#3 Apple offer IE , on it's OS

#4 Microsoft as an obligation to all other browser maker since it broke the law. They don't whant to follow the request of other browser , watch as your privilege to make a browser is completely removed.

Absolutely agree with you. Can I get Ubuntu without FF preinstalled, please? Hey, why did my MacBook Pro come preloaded with Safari? I'm so offended!
I'm about as neutral as they come, seeing as how my main machine is a Mac, and my server at home runs VM's of Windows XP, Beta of 7, and several different Linux distros. I haven't used IE on any version of Windows since FF came out. I don't even know what IE8 looks like, if at all different than 7, because I haven't even launched it. It doesn't really matter if it's there or not.

Oh wait, yes its *GONE*. But not really. Try Windows Explorer and then type a URL in the location bar...

Oh wait... there it is again. Internet Explorer.

Hmmm, but Windows Update only works with Internet Explorer? Right? Type in the URL for Windows Update with Windows Explorer location bar... oh there it is again and it works...

Please tell me how REMOVING the Executable/Binary works for removing Internet Explorer? When all the parts and pieces are still there and actually is 100% the same functionally... that sure is effective "removing".

If you have ever liked Windows at all, then you owe it to yourself to at least try it. Not even trying it due to silly ideals over a preinstalled browser would be a shame.

Nope not really. I've not used Windows at Work or Home for many years already. Not to say I haven't supported it, I have for many years until recently. In-lining service packs, hot fixes... much cruft involved.

Every time I use *ANY* version of Windows... even anecdotally (like at the next door neighbor's) I just cannot get over how wrong the whole OS feels... Its been like that for since I first used Gnome v1.2 and KDE v1.0.

Things just do not have any kind of a workflow in Windows. Windows is just plain wrong for me.

Then why bother posting in this thread? You don't like it, haven't used it regularly for a long time, and won't even consider trying it when the new version comes out. So what do you care if they still have IE installed with the OS?

I don't have to worry about Linux or FreeBSD. I don't even have to get off my fat butt to login to the machines and fix it.

Typically Windows requires a road trip.

Of course you'll never understand as you've never done Enterprise Support for Linux.

I understand Windows. I've walked in the Enterprise Support options from Novell and Microsoft. I've built "auto-install" images and scripted installs using Zen and SMS. I've made things happen from a single unified image to install about 35 distinct "machine" hardware combos. I've setup PXE environments and used 4 different types of network installation systems and multi-cast setups.

I just don't see why you think I have no interest in Windows. I do. I'd *TRULY* like to see Microsoft compete on quality and leadership and excellence in Operating System design and implementation.

But from what I continue to see, "good enough" is all they do. That and the lip service they give Europe and countries that have brought charges against Microsoft and successfully prosecuting them.

Oh, yeah that makes Microsoft a *CRIMINAL* Corporation. It been convicted of many things throughout the world... they'll never change unfortunately.

Why wouldn't you want to use windows update? Do you like virus's and worms? Not using an OS because the update software is no longer coupled to the browser(which was dumb right from the start) is probably the silliest reason I have ever heard.

Do you really think people are going to use internet explorer through windows explorer? Why would they do that if they could just install it and have a nice icon to click on.

But the browser is needed by the OS itself e.g. for providing help and by thousands if not 10,000's of applications that use it themselves. Should each application bundle the libraries themselves? Then every time MS patches something in the Trident every one has to update their applications in order to be secure.

Make trident into a normal library that can be installed and uninstalled. Than let all those 10,000 applications put trident as a dependency. Put all stuff into a repo and start to use that "Add/remove programs"-thingy in Windows as it should be used (IMO).

Seriously, package management is a really good feature that Windows lacks.

Most computers are bought through OEMs, and those machines are ready to go. Should the EU force every OEM to include a little pop-up window upon first boot where users can make a choice?

Heck, if you're gonna go that far, how about a giving the end-user the choice of what office suite, or even what OS they want installed at first boot up? A custom first-run boot loader that would bring up an OS menu wouldn't be that hard to implement.

Bingo. OEMs would be the logical group to try to convince to include an alternative browser in their default setup. Most end users I've encountered either don't care as long as it works or are more than capable o finding the alternatives themselves

"If users or OEMs want to load up another default browser, then they can"

EEEEEEEHHHHH. Wrong, Epic Fail!

How soon people forget or choose to not remember. Microsoft had contracts with OEMs that prohibited them from loading competitors software, or clauses in the contracts that penalized them so much money per unit if they put another browser (or music player, movie maker, etc) on their machines, it made it financially impossible for OEM's to offer choice and remain competitive.

In other words, they used their MONOPOLY in the desktop OS to keep competing products out of end users hands. This is known as illegal tying. You know..that thing they were taken to court for and found guilty of?

It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to use that monopoly to restrict trade and competition, which is what Microsoft did. that is what this is all about.

So, why not put focus on that stupid contract instead of trying to get Microsoft to include their browsers? I would be surprised if EU thinks that contract is okay.

The point is: the focus is all wrong. Why would a company support and push the products of a competitor? The lack of forcing users to use Microsofts products is enough, they don't need to actually support their competitors. Google and Opera should get their products into OEMs instead of Microsoft. And if Microsoft is preventing that, then they should complain about that instead.

The point is: the focus is all wrong. Why would a company support and push the products of a competitor? The lack of forcing users to use Microsofts products is enough, they don't need to actually support their competitors. Google and Opera should get their products into OEMs instead of Microsoft. And if Microsoft is preventing that, then they should complain about that instead.

Agree with this.

IMHO, a far better approach would be for the EU to insist that if Microsoft want to include an irremoveable browser bundled with their OS, then fine, as long as it was *STRICTLY* and *FULLY* web-standards compliant. CSS, DOM2, SVG, SMIL, ECMAscript, HTML5, Ogg Vorbis and Theora video ... all of that.

Any function that those standards can achieve in a browser ... those standards should be the way it is achieved. Not Silvelight or whatever.

That way any browser could render the same page in the same way that the browser bundled with Windows did. That way, web designers could make (just one version of) fully-functional active or static content web pages, same code for every browser, without requiring the end user to have Windows or Silverlight or Adobe flash plugin or whatever installed. That way, web designers could make sophisticated web pages without having to use Windows to do it.

"If users or OEMs want to load up another default browser, then they can"

EEEEEEEHHHHH. Wrong, Epic Fail!

How soon people forget or choose to not remember. Microsoft had contracts with OEMs that prohibited them from loading competitors software, or clauses in the contracts that penalized them so much money per unit if they put another browser (or music player, movie maker, etc) on their machines, it made it financially impossible for OEM's to offer choice and remain competitive.

In other words, they used their MONOPOLY in the desktop OS to keep competing products out of end users hands. This is known as illegal tying. You know..that thing they were taken to court for and found guilty of?

It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to use that monopoly to restrict trade and competition, which is what Microsoft did. that is what this is all about.

Good grief.

That practice hasn't been in effect for almost ten years. The US dealt with that in the MS trial. The settlement reached between MS and the DOJ wrt that trial is still in effect. Can we move on to relevant arguments, please?

If users or OEMs want to load up another default browser, then they can. Stop trying to FORCE your products on people under the guise of "well, MS has a monopoly" shit.

They can, but they can't remove the preinstalled one, users don't like the idea of having 2 apps installed for the same purpose, and even if you set a new one as the default the ms app will still rear it's ugly head trying to force users to use it.

"In its first statement in response to Microsoft's decision announced over the weekend to enable Windows 7 users to deactivate and/or uninstall Internet Explorer 8 after the operating system's setup installs it, a spokesperson for Google, which makes the Chrome browser, told Betanews overnight that not only should Windows users be given the option to choose their browsers during setup, but to do so every time they turn their machines on."

MS has made IE removable and quite frankly, thats good enough. If you want your broswer included witht he windows installs go talk to the OEM's. Remember 5+ years ago when every computer came with Netscape AND IE? well Google, that wasn't magic, that was them making a deal with HP/Gateway/others. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and instead of looking for a free ride go do some real business! allowing IE to be removed was enough, stop focing a company that makes spftware for a living (and services) to exclude one of it's OWN products from it's OWN product. If it was your product then your say would mean something, until then go make a deal with the OEM's or be quiet.

Most of those who commented so far forget that Microsoft have been found criminaly guilty and to have broken every law in the books. That means it's a privilege for them to be able to still offer an OS and have a browser that they make included and be able to sale it on ANY market on the planet.

Microsoft should be banned completly for the next decades from making a web browsers and be warned that the same could happen to it's OS.

Had Microsoft been a corporation who followed the law and played nice with it's competitor , as they used to do in the past none of this would be even discussed.

If Microsoft can't follow the law , imposed on it due to Microsoft breaking the law and more importantly keep breaking compatibility tru fraud and deception and misrepresentation , false advertising , tying of product both on is own platform and other company hardware tru collusion , etc and offer all browser , then it need to be removed from the Browser market entirely if not all market.

Until the law is followed from this days , it's the responsability of Google , Opera , Mozilla , GNU/Linux , BSD and all other OS and Browser to refuse to serve Microsoft only webpages and to serve Microsft OS and browser.

Why should Microsoft criminal be the only one able to break compatibility to their advantage ?

When Microsoft brakes the law they should be brought before court and judged accordingly, with a punishment that is decided there and then (fines, forcing them to make IE uninstallable, whatever).

This is not the place to play justice system. Are Google and Opera the ones who are gonna decide whos been bad and who hasn't? Or the people who comment on news sites?

I believe things like these has already been processed in European Court of Justice and I don't recall that they decided that Microsoft has no right to continue developing software, or that they are obliged to push for software from competitors within their own products. And that was correct, IMO.

Actually Microsoft has been ordered to be split in the USofA. Political intervention into the justice system prevented that. They are still *technically* under Anti-trust watch in the US.

Microsoft was also told not to ship media player with it's OS on the EU territory. Microsoft mocked the court and made another ridicule OS , playing with the judgement.

Microsoft was supposed to share all it's illegal change to standard that brake compatibility , it's still not fully done , but yet again Political intervention say the contrary.

The EU drop Microsoft supervision again for political reasons and not it's full cooperation and following of the law. You got two of it's major competitor who are still saying Microsoft break the law.

My knowledge , not belief , as god don't discuss computer but humans , is that everyone is equal and all should follow the same rule , laws and standards , if a repeat offender and corporation found multiple time criminaly guilty still don't follow the rule laws and standard for the good of everyone the only remaining solution after giving it tons of break is to remove it from the market completely.

If the law maker and enforcer still leave criminals act without impunity , then it give people absolute power to take the law into their own hands.

"Your running an infected and compromised and corrupted OS ( insert Microsoft windows version here ) , with a corrupted , infected , hacked browser ( insert internet explorer version here )." Do You want to continue and disolve Google and Opera and all others from the responsability of doing so.

What's good for Microsoft ( brake other people stuff , break standards , FUD others) , is not punishable by law apparently. Then why should other keep servicing Microsoft product properly and support them ? Its a two way street.

In your own words and false belief criminals have all the rights and privilege and are in the good , guess I am saying : YOUR 100% wrong.

I do not share your opinion that they should be completely removed from the market. I do agree that they should be severely punished for breaking anti-trust laws but how that punishment should take form is up to the justice system to decide (in which ever territory, be it EU or the US).

Of course the justice system has a lot of big flaws which prevents criminals from being properly prosecuted (in this case it's politics that's in the way, if I got you right). And Google and Opera can complain that the justice system is not working and point out that Microsoft is still breaking laws. But I do not see how that justifies that Microsoft should be forced to actively support the software from competitors, and as I said, I do not think that they should be forced to fully leave the market.

We can debate if Microsoft are bad and evil or not forever but the issue here is the request to force Microsoft to add a popup (or similar) that asks the user what browser he or she wants. I don't think it's logical. Previous posters has pointed out a lot of why is just isn't right:

* It gives the major browsers an unfair advantage and that's exactly what we are trying to prevent (no matter who makes the browser, right? Everyone should be treated the same)

* It is not logical to only include webbrowsers and will eventually have to be extended to include more even more software (we may actually end up with an "expert mode" as I wrote earlier and that's not too bad IMO)

* It's not logical that Microsoft should ship Windows with Chrome or Opera, Google doesn't ship Android with IE or let's the user choose to use MSN search on their iGoogle page). As I see it the bundling and mixing of third-party software and an OS should be done on another level (OEMs, or Linux distros), not at the maker of the OS. The only obligation that Microsoft has as I see it is to not prevent that from being possible, they need to make OEMs and others able to remove software like Paint, Notepad, IE and other software that's not part of the actual operating system.

Most of those who commented so far forget that Microsoft have been found criminaly guilty and to have broken every law in the books

Microsoft has never been found criminally guilty of anything, competition laws are civil, not criminal. Secondly, I have no idea where you live, but in most countries there are more laws on the books then competition laws. Thirdly, the only thing in competition law they have ever been found guilty of is product bundling, so the place you have must have pretty lax antitrust legislation.

If a company is found to dominate a market, the government can label them a monopoly, which puts additional restrictions on what they can and can not do. One of the restrictions is on using their market dominance to gain dominance in related markets. This is what Microsoft has been fined for doing.

Criminal law is around things you can be sent to jail for. Being a criminal does not mean breaking the law, it means breaking a kind of law, and then going to jail.

Microsoft is not a criminal, because they did not break that kind of law. They were fined for not complying with a stricture that doesn't apply to most companies, that is about as far from being a criminal as you can get. Beyond that, there are many things that a monopoly can not do, that Microsoft hasn't done.

So, they are not a criminal, they haven't broken every law in the book, in fact they haven't broken every law in the MONOPOLY book. There is absolutely nothing in what you said that is correct, and that was the basis of your post.

Violations of civil law aren't the same as violations of criminal law. The latter is completely different, and has a much higher burden of proof. A finding of liability under civil law merely requires a non-unanimous jury, single judge, or a commission making a decision based on "preponderance of evidence" (i.e. 50%+1 of the evidence). A guilty verdict in a criminal case requires a unanimous jury verdict of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Microsoft has never been accused of criminal activity, or tried under the stringent burden of proof required for such a charge.

Hyperbole is a rhetorical device that is only effective when it's not over the top and when both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader understand that the statement in question isn't actually true, but is exaggeration used for effect. Your sad hyperbolic statement isn't effective since it fails both of these test (your statement is over the top and you actually believe your own bull). Therefore it merely discredits your entire post.

Most of those who commented so far forget that Microsoft have been found criminaly guilty and to have broken every law in the books.

So MS has committed arson? murder? rape? Treason? illegal stem cell research? how about bigamy? No? What about genocide? I thought not.

Stop exaggerating, MS is a convicted monopolist, and they have stopped (as far as I know) the illegal activities that got them there. OEMs can bundle any browser they want these days, and they generally choose not to.

Sounds like the EU is targeting the wrong people. They should force OEMs to offer the alternatives. If MS is forced to take IE out of Windows, I would bet that nobody will buy it, just like Windows N.

So MS has committed arson? murder? rape? Treason? illegal stem cell research? how about bigamy? No? What about genocide? I thought not.

Yes , to all except Stem cell , who is not criminall or illegal in most country , no one as been found guilty of it in any respectable country anyway. Microsoft **employee** are a busy bunch , they are also global and they employ ex-con.

What is 100% clear here is Microsoft *The corporation* , as been found criminally guilty and it's >>>on the record<<< and since you don't like that fact to be known your trying the "But they are not on the book as Charles Manson or a Saddam hussein" type of internet forum defence.

I could point out that a corporation raping someone would be hard since it's not human , but hey it's your insane point , and according to your little friend your the expert.

Bernard ( bernie ) Madoff is such a nice guy according to your standard of justice , but he as never commited a crime he should be left alone poor Bernie ... He did what Microsoft usually does enter a guilty plea and pay a fine , except unlike Microsoft he will see Jail , since it's usually a deal by the justice system to avoid million in getting a guilty verdict.

I am not exagerating , >>Microsoft<< and not MS because there is an internationnal criminal with that surname , is on the criminal record and as been found guilty of a criminal offense they where accused of.

Windows N is a Fluke , it showed that corporation will circumvent the law when the judgement is not precise to the dot. Microsoft was told not to sale Windows with media player on the EU territory. Not to create another OS that followed the judement and say look it don't sale. It's like a crack vendor who sell heroine or marijuana because the court told them to stop selling crack. It's a mockery of the law.

The problem here is your telling law abiding corporation that criminal and civil activities are ok in the pursuit of market conquest. They tried the courts and Microsoft still does whatever it wants.

My only point is : youve been granted as a corporation facing Microsoft the immunity to wage legal war on any front , at any level in anyshape or form , since the court are politically broken where Microsoft is concerned.

Search Microsoft on Google or Opera or all the other and redirect to Apple , GNU/Linux , BSD , and remove all trace of Microsoft in your database.

Yeah, and why not having the choice of kernel ? No, really, internet browsers ain't that big face to Windows' bloat of disk space, why not preinstalling all of them with their respective icon on the Desktop and let the user choose which suit him the best ?

To be fair to all the makers of these various types of software, shouldn't we force everybody to make a choice between the various options available in these categories when they install Windows?

Hmmm, I don't want to be sarcastic here, but *EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS* were not, at one time, a "Windows" OS bundle... some how they got included and those particular software segments just "went away". MicroSoft's programs are not best of breed (and have never been), but they are "good enough" to not make it worth it to buy additional BETTER equivalent software.

So... please let me know when you can convince me they play fair... anywhere.

To be fair to all the makers of these various types of software, shouldn't we force everybody to make a choice between the various options available in these categories when they install Windows?

Hmmm, I don't want to be sarcastic here, but *EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS* were not, at one time, a "Windows" OS bundle... some how they got included and those particular software segments just "went away". MicroSoft's programs are not best of breed (and have never been), but they are "good enough" to not make it worth it to buy additional BETTER equivalent software.

So... please let me know when you can convince me they play fair... anywhere.

Anyone remember 386MAX? QDOS4? DR-DOS? ... please "

<sarcasm>You're right; let's neuter the OS to the point where you can't do anything with it until you install a CD's worth of 3rd party apps that don't integrate as well with the rest of the OS or each other.</sarcasm>

IMO, every one of those apps (with the exception of maybe the games) listed above should, in the year 2009, be considered crucial components to an OS.

How about they be added if wanted... garbage/kitchen sink installs are horribly insecure.

Microsoft included all those components by "partnering" with the original companies that made them. Then "making" replacements... after learning how the products did what they do.

Sure, go ahead and mark this down. I'll expect it.

oh, I read what you said. And I still definitely disagree. Like I said, all but the games are integral to the OS, IMO. I don't see how making the average user sift through a ton of options at install to get what I consider to be basic OS functionality is the right thing to do.

So, it's Microsoft's fault that by way of your arguement people chose not to use other software?

No... I did use them. The companies died on the vine. Microsoft made "good enough" software... vs stellar software.

Ok, think of it like this: You buy a car. You've spent most of your money on it. The car has tires that only allow you to go 50mph safely. It gets you everywhere you need to go. But not as well as you'd like.

Those are Microsoft brand tires, not Goodyear. They are good enough to get the job done and are legal in every aspect but are not able to do the job WELL. Are you going to buy replacement tires are you? No.

Until you realize that "Good enough" always wins when pushed that way, you just won't wrap your head around this decision Microsoft made to use its monopoly to keep people from buying other products they feel they need to obliterate.

Feh, you'll just go on and say I am a Linux Bigot or something. Go on... many will believe you.

No I wont say that, but what I don't understand is why Microsoft is being blamed because consumers choose not to go and get "superior" products.

Why would someone go and get this better software if the software they already have does the job they require? It seems rediculous to suggest that people should get "superior" software just because and in many cases pay for it.

It comes down to demand and money. Nobody wants to pay for something they don't need. It's also unfair to say that Microsoft somehow used their monopoly to influence people to not even bother looking. If people are too stupid to look around and check out their options then it's their own damn fault.

Take the provided Calculator and Notepad apps. I have never looked for another calculator app because the one they provide is sufficient. I paid for that in my purchase of Windows. Regarding Notepad, I kept finding myself frustraited with a lot of manual text manipulation so I looked around for a better solution and Texpad came up. It's far superior, I need it so I purchased it and dumped Notepad.

Microsoft cannot be blamed because I've never bothered finding an alternative to Calculator. That was my decision.

Also, unless we're going to remove all but the core functionality from all operating systems then bundling basic very useful and regularly used apps with any OS makes sense. To me, a calculator, notepad, web browser, defrag tool, file browser, etc fit into this and should be provided.

The thing is, is that Microsoft didn't use it's monopoly in the OS to crush it's competitors in those fields.

It did not integrate any of those products into the core OS and then claim they are 'integral to the OS'.

MS didn't force the OEM's into contracts penalizing them for putting competing products in those categories on the machines like they did with the browser. As a result, almost all machines come with various programs and trials, and whatnot for a large number of those products, and indeed it is up to the the OEMs as to what you get with the machine.

That is not the case with the browser. They have been charged, tried, and convicted of using their monopoly position with the OS to illegally tie the browser to the OS and to stifle competition. If they had acted as they did with all their other products that came bundled with the OS, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and there would probably be 20 different browsers in the market, all standards compliant and none with a huge dominance.

Just think how much better Windows would have been without that pile of crap IE integrated into the kernel. All those security holes that can't be patched could have been removed by simply installing a different browser and removing (completely removing all the code, not just the shortcut)IE.

I agreed with you right up until the IE in the kernel bit. It was never in the kernel, but it was pretty deep in the API.

The reason that IE couldn't be removed from the OS is because it was one of the COM poster children, pretty much ever bit that you see was a different COM object that may or may not be used in other programs. It was like KParts, just done with reckless abandon.

They were playing a semantic game in court when they said it couldn't be removed from the OS. It could have been, but it would have meant writing stubs for all the bits so that other apps could still function. Which is ugly and hacky, but that is what you get with tightly coupled architecture.

To be fair to all the makers of these various types of software, shouldn't we force everybody to make a choice between the various options available in these categories when they install Windows?

With the exception of the firewall program, all of these were present in windows already before it became a monopoly...
Many of them are also considered crippled programs, and they are quite clearly marketed as trivial apps with full blown applications being sold separately. You could argue that IE is pretty crippled and basic compared to other browsers, but unlike the other apps it's had the effect of lowering the common denominator.

But the fix for all this is simple, make MS sell the basic core of the OS to distributors and oems, and make them sell everything else separately, and enable third parties to take the basic components and assemble a system for sale to end users... You know, the same way linux currently works.

Oh and more importantly, force them to document all interfaces protocols and formats, use existing standards if available and perform open consultation on such things with other parties and standards bodies. I would force everyone to follow open standards or develop new ones co-operatively, standards are good for everyone.

But the fix for all this is simple, make MS sell the basic core of the OS to distributors and oems, and make them sell everything else separately, and enable third parties to take the basic components and assemble a system for sale to end users... You know, the same way linux currently works.

Oh and more importantly, force them to document all interfaces protocols and formats, use existing standards if available and perform open consultation on such things with other parties and standards bodies. I would force everyone to follow open standards or develop new ones co-operatively, standards are good for everyone.

On the other hand, I completely disagree. One of many reasons we chose to develop on the Microsoft stack is the quality of the integration of the components, and the level of control over the basic platform. Opening it up to a free-for-all of any old third party bits and pieces would have the effect of significantly fragmenting the market, and making it uneconomic for us to develop the kinds of products we do.

As long as the operating system has an open and documented API and a very good platform it should not be a problem. What should be customisable are the applications. The line should be drawn between libraries and graphical applications.

I actually don't mind that operating system ship with a html renderer (Trident in Windows, KHTML in KDE, etc) or that they ship with libraries for handling IPC communication (D-BUS and whatnot).

Stuff like Active Directory and the like on the server side should be a separable product that can be installed or uninstalled by the user.

What exactly are the components of Windows that you find crucial to expect every user of Windows to have? Why not have a good package management and your products could just say "we require these components to work properly" and it will automaticly be installed along with your product.

Maybe it can be solved with standardised APIs? Since I don't know exactly what components you are refering to it's hard to say anything relevant actually. But I still believe that there are solutions for everything and that there are ways to improve on the situation of Microsoft that would benefit all (but MS) of us.

By "standardized API", do you mean "interchangeable" libraries that provide the "same" API functionality? The problem with that is that the testing matrix explodes.

So any part of the OS that relied on, say, an HTML renderer or browser component would have to be tested with Trident, with webkit, with this, with that, etc. The tasting matrix is already bad enough.

And let's say that the EC, having established precedent, demands that other Windows API be allowed to be replaced by third party API libs. We'd be looking at exponential explosion of the testing matrix.

Once again Microsoft has muddied the waters, and most people around here missed the fact the IE is NOT removable, Microsoft has merely given the user the ability to "turn it off".

"Turning it off" and "uninstalling it completely" are two different things. In fact, when you read about the changes, Microsoft states that IE can be "re-installed" without a download or without installation media..... to me this sounds like ALL required files are there all the time, whether I want them there or not.

Now, a note to people who moan about Linux including a browser... clearly you have not tried a Linux, most come with a few different browsers, and ALL can be removed without problems. This cannot be done with IE.
Also, it is not LINUX but a variation, so do you want Firefox removed from Ubuntu, and Iceweasel from Debian, get a clue cabbages

This isn't exactly right. All linux browsers are removable, but you can't really use KDE without Konqueror (or at least KHTML). So, though you can remove it, the application is so tied to others, that you'll have to remove a lot more.

The same goes for IE (or its engine Trident). You can hide it, but you can't remove it without breaking a lot more.

This isn't exactly right. All linux browsers are removable, but you can't really use KDE without Konqueror (or at least KHTML). So, though you can remove it, the application is so tied to others, that you'll have to remove a lot more.

The same goes for IE (or its engine Trident). You can hide it, but you can't remove it without breaking a lot more.

Since KDE4, Konqueror is fully installable without affecting the rest of KDE.

"This isn't exactly right. All linux browsers are removable, but you can't really use KDE without Konqueror (or at least KHTML). So, though you can remove it, the application is so tied to others, that you'll have to remove a lot more.

The same goes for IE (or its engine Trident). You can hide it, but you can't remove it without breaking a lot more.

Since KDE4, Konqueror is fully installable without affecting the rest of KDE. "

And this is relevant, why?
There are lots of Windows apps that make use of the IE components if not IE itself. How KDE does things is irrelevant. Fine, you were responding to someone that used KDE as an example, but it was just an example. Saying that KDE4 does things differently doesn't refute the argument. Another example can easily take it's place. Removing webkit or quicktime from OSX would break certain parts of the OS and apps that depend on the corresponding APIs.

There are too many variables in this mess. What if the user doesn't have an internet connection? What kind of royalties will the 'top' alternative browsers pay for space on the gold master (which will be outdated by the time they're installed)? Here's what I think, which I think would be logical;

-make it accessible for the user to change default browser easily by putting a shortcut to 'change default browser' in the control panel, or better yet in the start->programs menu

-MS manages the alt. browser list by accepting requests from companies interested in being listed, on the basis that there's a $XX transaction fee for each download or something.

That way, if you want to be on the list, you still pay a premium, but you have the choice of being on the list or not. Of course, MS could just provide the list for free, which would be optimal, but of course not realistic.

In the end, Windows is not a free and open to suggestion operating system. What they package is what they think is what the consumer wants, and if the consumer doesn't want it, they shouldn't buy it. If you want no IE, and firefox as your default browser, I could easily name you 5 other operating systems that are more than happy to default firefox for you!

There are too many variables in this mess. What if the user doesn't have an internet connection? What kind of royalties will the 'top' alternative browsers pay for space on the gold master (which will be outdated by the time they're installed)? Here's what I think, which I think would be logical;

Funniest thing I have read today.... If the user has no internet connection, why worry about the installed browser in the first place lol

I know what you meant by the rest of the post... but the first paragraph made me smile.

Why is a browser, a free piece of software, more important than any of these? When Netscape was around, they had *some* validity to their argument since they *claimed* that Microsoft was costing them money from selling Netscape browsers. (The reality was that almost all users used Netscape for free (under the "evaluation" clause of the EULA), and Netscape's real revenue stream was Netscape servers, a revenue stream that Apache destroyed.) But all current browsers are free of charge, so what's the big deal that government should get involved in forcing users to choose among different free browsing software?

Microsoft should add a popup at install time that says "We bundle software with Windows. Do you care?"

Sure, a lot of people do. But most don't. Those who don't can install their favourite software anyway. The only logical solution that would make Google and Opera happy as I see it would be an "expert mode" when you install Windows that let's you choose packages to be included in the setup. Normal mode would include everything from Microsofts arsenal but it would be possible to uninstall at any time later on if the user would like to use something else.

Google and Opera, the solution is simple. Create your own OS, make it just as end-user appealing as Microsoft has down with Windows, get just as successful as Microsoft has by riding the wave of your new , and then pack your own browser with your own OS.

But wait ... don't be too successful ... because then little browsers that no one cares about or uses will poke and prod the EU to instigate anti-monopoly litigation against you! Oh no, what's the world to do!!

I just had to reply to this. Its funny that you seem to side with Microsoft yet just a few months ago the shoe was on the other foot. The exact same argument could be made about Google's search engine and ads. Yet Microsoft was the first in line to whine to the FTC that Google should not be allowed to make a deal with Yahoo. I kind of see this as payback.

In the end the problem is: How can Microsoft include a browser without applying sway to the web market. They are dumping IE after version 8. I think they should just start using a browser with a standards based engine created by someone else.

Just: Windows gives you the option to remove IE completely so users can install a different browser

Lynch: Windows not only has to make it completely removable but must offer multiple browsers at install (or logon if that translation is correct). Other OSes are exempt... of course.

Don't get me wrong, I think MS has done plenty of proven and unproven actions that are shady and morally and ethically wrong. There is a significant difference between justice, which is needed, and revenge (lynching) which is not needed. The sword cuts both ways and with equal measure can it fell other companies if it can be used to fell MS.

Since very few people install it themselves, the OEMs will preinstall a browser for the vast majority of users. Those few users who do perform their own install should be capable of acquiring a browser themselves.

Or better yet, have microsoft ship windows as a bunch of modules thats available to OEMs, and let third parties actually produce distributions which are sold to the public or supplied preinstalled with hardware.

OEMs will ship anything if they’re handed cash—even if said software totally breaks the machine. Heck, OEMs would happily ship an advert-supported browser of their own design. OEMs in general have nothing but total contempt for their customers.

From the "Read more" :
What the interview doesn't discuss is the implementation of such a choice window. As far as I can tell, there are two big problems with offering users a choice of browser during setup. The first problem is relatively simple: how many people actually install Windows themselves? And those that do, aren't those more advanced users anyway? Most computers are bought through OEMs, and those machines are ready to go. Should the EU force every OEM to include a little pop-up window upon first boot where users can make a choice?

About how many peple install windows themselves? Well not many. But you know that Vista welcome screen that always appears upon login unless you uncheck a box......

Why would Microsoft include Opera? If they ship Windows with a third party product, especially one which where the source is not available, they have no control whether they are shipping malware or other kind of crap.

All Microsoft security jokes aside, the moment Microsoft ships Opera they will get a punch in the face _if_ Opera turns out to include bugs and security issues. They can not be certain that Opera has a satisfactory quality control regime for their product and entire development/testing environment. Sure, they can get some sort of third party reporting service to evaluate their processes and controls, but they can never be 100% sure. If such a scenario should play out it could cause quite a scratch in the Microsoft brand even though Microsoft is not to blame at all.

(disclaimer: I dislike Opera because its a shitty browser and this may or may not influence my comments)

You are wise.
For all we know, Opera could be full of holes that haven't been revealed or exploited because its userbase is so tiny. We all saw Firefox's security issues skyrocket as soon as it past a certain userbase threshold. There's zero reason to believe that Opera would be any different (unless we assume that Opera's programmers are inherently better than everyone else's).

All this talk about how easy or difficult it is for Windows users to uninstall IE misses the point, I think. The problem is not that you can't use other browsers in Windows, or that it's not obvious enough for users that they can.

The problem is that IE (at least older versions) is not standards compliant and not really available without Windows. It has its own undocumented proprietary "standard", so web developers need a licensed copy of IE, which usually means a licensed Windows installation, which is money for Microsoft. Yes, there's IEs4Linux and IE for Mac, but the former is a somewhat flaky Wine hack (and STILL you need a Windows installation for legal reasons) and the latter was discontinued by Microsoft (and presumably you were still paying to Microsoft for the browser). And, if someone managed to reproduce IE's behavior exactly, looks, quirks and all, in another browser, then MS could sue them for software patent infringement, at least in USA.

So, the EU is using some ridiculous anti-monopoly laws to mitigate the effect of ridiculous pro-monopoly laws. Ah, the checks and balances of modern legal systems.

The European commission better get on to these things soon, I won't be happy until windows comes on 6 dvds and asks me about every choice at install time.

Why not an option of one 400-500MB CD with the bare minimum components required to run Windows (as well as the .net framework and DirectX)? No DVD or BluRay decoders or associated DRM tied into the kernel, though.

No Notepad; I use Metapad and prefer to be able to open text files with different line endings. No Paint; I'll never use it and will just install Paint.net instead. No Windows Messenger crap; I'll take Trillian or Pidgin any day (and certainly not with Microsoft's MSN service). No Windows Media Player; I'll install Winamp and Media Player Classic, and rip CDs with CDex or EAC. No Wordpad; Abiword is better. No Image Viewer; IrfanView is just fine. No IE; I'd rather use Firefox, SeaMonkey, or Opera.

Maybe offer the disk defragmenter "just in case," but it's highly likely I would just use PerfectDisk. The only program I can honestly say *should* be in Windows, no doubt, is Windows Explorer. Navigating the file system is pretty vital to get to your CD-ROM or USB thumb drive and install additional software. Now that I think of it, it's kind of funny how much (or more appropriately, how little) need I have for Microsoft's software; virtually none these days, aside from the underlying OS.

If they did something like this and released it for cheap, that'd be awesome. Instead, they'd rather give us a still-bloated version with obscene limitations like running three apps at a time, which has likely probably not been trimmed down at all hardly. And the control panel might not be such a maze to navigate through (seriously, it's a mess). Hell, it'd be nice if they would bring back a software selection screen in the installer that they took away with XP.

Then let's see Google and Opera whine to the EU about that. That would be fun.

The real answer is for Microsoft to agree to this stupid dialog idea, but any browser that wants to be included in the dialog has to pay a fee to Microsoft. $5 per every Windows installation. Microsoft would still dump IE. That way nobody can say IE is being given an unfair advantage, and Microsoft makes cash (as they should, for bundling other peoples' wares).

P.S.
Google needs to polish Chrome before they demand that Microsoft bundle it. I used it as my main browser until last week, when I finally went back to Firefox (and IE, to a lesser extent). Chrome has lots of irritations that add up. Stupid things like when saving a web page, the SaveAs dlg that comes up is the old XP dialog, even on Vista. WTF? You have to go out of your way to invoke the XP dlg on Vista. Chrome also frequently drives the CPU to 90% or more on my laptop. Flash video playback is problematic on my Vista computer (though not XP). Lots of time there's no sound, and other times the video just stops playing. Chrome has lots of problems. I used to really like Chrome but after long use, I've concluded that Firefox blows it away.

As for IE7 (I've never used IE8), I don't use it much anymore because the UI is so damn slow, particularly creating new tabs and switching tabs. The rendering of pages is slow too. But Flash seems to work better in IE for me, and I like saving mht files; those are the reasons I use IE at all. IE needs to be redone from scratch, IMO. (As I said, I've not used IE8; and I did see the "Gazelle" article, but that article had no meat on it).

For most people it's not important which browser they are using, because from their point of view, they're using "the Internet". Such users are majority of Internet users, and it's pretty clear that they're not configuring systems by themselves. It's the system administrator who chooses which browser to install, and which to set to default, so there's no point in giving the choosing option to a "user", because it's insignificant to him in the first place.

As many of you here I do not like Microsoft, though I think Opera and Google are going too far at this time if the article is not misleading anything. Microsoft does not need to include every other browsers(why?) into Windows release which is yet ever growing in size! And if they do, user won't get an up-to-date browser when the user reinstall the windows. Have to download it manually anyway.

Another point is that 'is it just enough to include Opera and Chrome?' Then Opera and Google are so much selfish in that case. But again Microsoft cannot include every possible web browsers in this universe!

So if Microsoft cannot include other browsers and only provide an option to remove IE during installation, how a user gonna download another web browser of her/his choice without a browser on the system(ie if the user cannot access to the web)? Only option is that Microsoft should provide an option to remove IE later on. I mean completely and cleanly without leaving any of its components left behind wasting hard disk space.

Except that Messenger isn't included in Windows by default anymore-- at least since Vista. Or was it Seven? I'm pretty sure I remember Vista not having MSN (or shall we say Windows Live) messenger as a default. I know for sure that this is the case with Windows 7. 90% sure about Vista. You have to install Windows Live to get it either way.

So those fellows won't be able to have the same argument about bundling software because messenger isn't bundled anymore.

It hasnt been the case that it was that integral to the os since xp. Vista doesnt even integrate it with exporer anymore. If you type a url into exporer it pops up your default browser. As for using internet exporer as a widget in 3rd party apps, what OS doesnt allow that? Apple with safari, and even linux with several other browsers..

This is kind of a pointless argument at this point.
What they are proposing is a huge double standard.
Why is it ok for linux to install firefox by default and not present a popup with a choice on install? Why is it ok for apple to install safari by default and not provide a prompt with a choice? The most you can really ask without being a hypocritical jackass is that they allow you to uninstall it.

"We normal users use a browser that works best with our favourite sites. We usually have firefox and IE and just use one when the other doesn't work well. If it none of those work, we call our IT friends and they tell us which to download" - normal user.

No one really cares about from the browser makers who thinks normal users are fools and just go with what they first see. Sure a bundled browser means first stab, but it doesn't mean it's the only browser used. Moreover, at least one browser should come with the OS; wouldn't be much of useful OS without one. So if these browser makers want competition, just bundle *all* (i.e. every single one ) of them with windows and see which people choose, wouldn't that be fair?